By Lisa M. Campbell and Lisa R. Burchi
On June 7, 2021, Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) announced the issuance of its Interim Order Respecting Ultraviolet Radiation-emitting Devices and Ozone-generating Devices under the Pest Control Products Act (Interim Order), setting forth new requirements for certain devices claiming to control, destroy, make inactive, or reduce the level of bacteria, viruses, and other micro-organisms that are human pathogens. PMRA also issued an “Explanatory Note” and a Questions and Answers document regarding the Interim Order.
PMRA states that it issued the Interim Order following the increased sale of ultraviolet (UV) radiation-emitting and ozone-generating devices such as lights and wands in Canada since the COVID-19 pandemic. These devices are marketed to kill bacteria and viruses, including SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. According to PMRA, it has not received enough evidence to confirm that UV radiation-emitting and ozone-generating devices are safe for users and the public, or that they are effective.
Thus, PMRA is now requiring that companies register certain UV radiation-emitting devices and ozone-generating devices before they may be sold or used in Canada. In its Explanatory Note, PMRA states:
By bringing certain UV and ozone-generating devices under the [Pest Control Products Act (PCPA)], they need to be registered or otherwise authorized in order to be on the Canadian market. An application to register a pest control product must be submitted to Health Canada in the form and manner directed by the Minister and must include any information and other material that is required by the Pest Control Products Regulations to accompany the application. Applications to register devices consist of a number of information and data requirements, including a cover letter stating the purpose of the application, an application and fee estimate forms, the proposed English and French product labels, as well as data to support the safety and efficacy of the device. A registration will be granted under the PCPA if the Minister considers that the health and environmental risks and the value of the device are acceptable after any required assessments.
The Interim Order clarifies that certain UV radiation-emitting devices and ozone-generating devices claiming to kill bacteria and viruses are not subject to the regulatory requirements of the PCPA and its Regulations. These include:
- Devices that are manufactured, represented, distributed, or used to control, destroy, or inactivate viruses, bacteria, or other micro-organisms that are human pathogens for use in swimming pools, spas, or wastewater treatment systems;
- Devices that meet the definition of “device” in Section 2 of the Food and Drugs Act and are classified as a Class II, III, or IV medical device under the Medical Devices Regulations; and
- UV radiation-emitting devices that satisfy the following conditions:
- The device is certified by a standards development organization accredited by the Standards Council of Canada as meeting the applicable Canadian electrical safety requirements;
- The certification mark of the standards development organization appears on the label of the device;
- Any efficacy claim that is made in respect of the device is only a claim of supplemental sanitization;
- No express or implied reference to prevention, treatment, or mitigation of disease is made in respect of the device;
- The device has at least one of the following mechanisms:
- A mechanism that locks the device during operation, or
- A mechanism that automatically shuts off the device if it is opened during operation; and
- The UV lamp is fully shielded or enclosed in the device in a manner that prevents access to it by users of the device and prevents exposure to UV radiation.
For UV radiation-emitting devices that satisfy these conditions, there are additional labeling requirements for the display panels and operating manual.
This Interim Order changes significantly the requirements applicable to these types of devices that did not previously require registration. PMRA is providing a 30-day transition period after the Interim Order is issued before companies must comply with these requirements. PMRA also is advising Canadians to “stop using UV lights and wands that claim to disinfect against the virus that causes COVID-19 especially if the product is for use on the skin.”
Companies that produce devices that may be subject to this Interim Order should review the new requirements and exemptions carefully. PMRA states that unregistered or unauthorized devices are prohibited and may be subject to compliance and enforcement action.
By Barbara A. Christianson
On June 4, 2021, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it will host a webinar for pesticide registrants to provide registrants an overview on how to request Certificates of Registration, commonly known as Gold Seal letters, using the Pesticide Submission Portal. Gold Seal letters serve as proof for pesticide exporters that the product is registered with EPA and meets all necessary registration requirements.
According to EPA, since launching the digital platform in 2020 in response to the COVID-19 public health emergency, the electronic process has resulted in quicker processing of Gold Seal letters and thorough and complete internal tracking. Due to continuing safety precautions within EPA, it is still unable to produce traditional, paper-based Gold Seal letters. Accordingly, registrants must continue to submit requests through the Pesticide Submission Portal.
Stakeholders interested in attending the presentation can click here to join the online meeting (registration is not required). The webinar will be held on June 14, 2021, at 1:00 p.m. (EDT).
Information on how to request a Gold Seal certificate letter, including information on how registrants should present the letters to the U.S. Department of State when authentication is needed for business purposes, is available here.
By Heather F. Collins, M.S. and Barbara A. Christianson
On May 10, 2021, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the launch of an electronic Confidential Statement of Formula application (eCSF builder) to support pesticide registration applications. The new electronic tool is part of EPA’s interest in improving and modernizing the internal processes and digital workflows for pesticide registration submissions.
As part of the registration process for new pesticide products, EPA requires the submission of a Confidential Statement of Formula (CSF). The form lists all the product’s components and percent by weight, along with various additional information.
Currently, CSF applications must be submitted to EPA in hard copy. The new eCSF builder will automatically validate certain data in a CSF application prior to submission to EPA. EPA states this functionality, along with real-time validation of chemical ingredients through EPA’s Substance Registry Services, will make the pesticide registration process more efficient, saving EPA and registrants time and resources. While paper CSF forms remain available, EPA encourages submitting applications electronically, as the review of paper applications could be a longer process.
Users can access the eCSF builder on the Central Data Exchange (CDX) under Pre-Submission Tools, Form Builders, by clicking the Create eCSF button. Users can provide feedback to EPA through the CDX.
Additional information is available on our blog.
By Carla N. Hutton
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced on May 6, 2021, that Bear River Supply Inc., based in Rio Oso, California, has agreed to pay a $50,578 penalty to resolve EPA’s findings that the Company produced pesticides in an unregistered establishment, distributed and sold misbranded pesticides, and failed to maintain equipment properly. According to EPA, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) and EPA discovered the violations during a series of inspections conducted at two separate facilities in Rio Oso. Inspectors found that “Vistaspray 440 Spray Oil” and “Roundup PowerMax” were being repackaged and distributed with improper labeling. In addition, EPA states, inspectors determined that Bear River Supply was producing pesticides in a facility that was not registered with EPA. While at the facilities, inspectors also found that a secondary containment unit and loading pad, both used to contain potential spills, were inadequate. The Company has since corrected the violations.
Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), pesticide manufacturers must register their facilities with EPA and annually report their pesticide production. EPA states that production records provide information on the quantities of pesticides produced and distributed. EPA notes that in addition, the number assigned to the establishment must appear on the label. FIFRA’s reporting and labeling requirements allow EPA and state agencies to track pesticide products back to the companies that produced them and “are necessary to ensure safe management and distribution” of pesticides.
By Heather F. Collins, M.S.
On April 21, 2021, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the issuance of Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Section 18 emergency exemptions to the states of Georgia, Minnesota, and Utah permitting the use of BiaXamTM B110-V and BiaXamTM B110-P (BiaXam), adhesive film used as supplemental residual surface coating, in Delta Air Lines planes and facilities in those three states.
According to the EPA Authorizations for Georgia, Minnesota, and Utah (EPA Authorizations), the unregistered product is a transparent adhesive film that contains the unregistered active ingredient, Benzene, 1-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-4-ethenyl-, polymer with ethenylbenzene and 2-methyl-1,3-butadiene, sulfonated (CAS RN 1637665-77-0). BiaXam is approved for use on indoor hard, nonpliable, nonporous, nonfood-contact surfaces of aircraft, airports, and associated facilities owned or operated by Delta Air Lines, to provide residual control of the SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. The adhesive film must be applied by trained applicators to indoor surfaces in airplanes, airports, and related facilities at the Delta Air Lines sites listed on the label. Prior to application of the BiaXam product, the surface initially must be disinfected using a disinfectant from EPA’s List N – Disinfectants for Use Against SARS-CoV.
The BiaXam film is to be replaced in airplanes at least every 200 days, and in airports and related facilities at least every 100 days. If the film detaches from the surface, degrades, is damaged, becomes irreparably soiled, or its edges or corners begin to peel, the film is to be removed, the surface cleaned and dried using a List N disinfectant, and a new layer of film applied to the surface according to the application instructions on the label. To maintain protective effect on surfaces that have been treated with BiaXam, only alcohol-based Purell wipes, Matrix Disinfectant/Cleaner #3 (quaternary ammonium based, EPA Reg. No. 1839-168-67026), and Lysol wipes (quaternary ammonium based, EPA Reg. No. 777-114) may be used on film-covered surfaces for routine cleaning and disinfection. The film surface is to be cleaned directly in place and not removed unless replacing. If cleaning products are provided to the public (e.g., airline passengers), only products compatible with BiaXamTM B110-V and BiaXamTM B110-P should be provided.
FIFRA Section 18 authorizes EPA to exempt federal or state agencies from any provision of FIFRA in the event that emergency conditions require such an exemption. EPA regulations (40 C.F.R. Part 166) specify when state or federal government agencies will be permitted to use unregistered pesticides in response to an emergency. EPA’s regulations provide that an emergency exists when:
- There is an “urgent, non-routine” situation requiring the use of a pesticide to control a new pest not previously prevalent in the United States, to control significant risks to health, the environment, beneficial organisms, or endangered species, or to prevent specified types of economic loss; and
- There is no registered pesticide or economically or environmentally feasible alternate method of control available.
40 C.F.R. § 166.3.
The exemptions granted can be very specific and time-limited; EPA has developed a database so companies can search (by chemical, site, pest, applicant, or date range) to determine if an emergency exemption has been issued and its expiration date.
EPA’s approval will allow the BiaXam product to be used at facilities owned or controlled by Delta Air Lines, Inc., at specific sites in Georgia, Minnesota, and Utah, on indoor hard, nonpliable, nonporous, and nonfood-contact surfaces in airplanes, airports, and other air-travel related facilities owned or controlled by Delta Air Lines, Inc. including, but not limited to:
- Airplanes: railings, doorknobs/handles, armrests, seatback touch screens, seatbelt buckles, window shades, overhead bins, and overhead control buttons.
- Airports and other air-travel related facilities: check-in kiosks and counters, gate counters, railings, doorknobs/handles, luggage bins, desks, keyboards, computer mice, touchscreens, printers, badge readers, plastic divider walls, hard nonporous seating, armrests, and elevator buttons.
The approved Section 18 emergency requests are effective for one year. Any unexpected adverse effects related to the use of this product must be reported immediately to EPA as required under the terms of the FIFRA Section 18 emergency exemption approval.
By Carla N. Hutton
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced on April 19, 2021, that Univar Solutions USA, Inc. of Portland, Oregon, will pay a $165,000 penalty for violating the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) when it failed to label properly its “Woodlife 111” pesticide, which is used as a wood preservative. EPA notes that under FIFRA, “a pesticide is misbranded if, ‘the labeling accompanying it does not contain directions for use which are necessary … to protect health and the environment’ and if ‘…the label does not contain a warning or caution statement which may be necessary … to protect health and the environment.’” According to the press release, EPA alleged that between approximately January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2018, Woodlife 111 labels “omitted several required sections important for the protection of the handler and for the environment, including user safety requirements, first aid directions, use of personal protective equipment, and portions of the storage and disposal section.” EPA states that it cited the company for 33 FIFRA violations when Univar sold and distributed the misbranded pesticide via bulk shipments. According to the press release, the case resulted from a March 5, 2019, inspection of the Univar facility by the Oregon Department of Agriculture’s EPA-credentialed inspectors.
By Lisa M. Campbell and Lisa R. Burchi
On April 8, 2021, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) to solicit information on the current pesticide exemption provision process. 86 Fed. Reg. 18232. EPA announced its intent to issue this ANPR on January 19, 2021, as discussed here. The issuance of the ANPR was paused following the Biden Administration’s Executive Orders requiring agencies to review their rules and policies to ensure consistency with the current Administration’s environmental policies.
EPA states that it is soliciting comments and suggestions to determine whether regulatory and policy changes are needed to improve the exemption provisions for pesticides that may be considered minimum risk under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). EPA states that changes to the current process could make the implementation and evaluation of the exemption provisions more efficient.
Comments on the ANPR are due before July 7, 2021. Discussed below are the issues raised in the ANPR for stakeholder consideration and changes made since the ANPR was first announced in January 2021.
The ANPR is generally the same as what was first announced in January 2021, in which EPA states it is seeking public input for two main categories:
- Whether EPA should be streamlining the petition process and revisions to how EPA evaluates the potential minimum risk active and inert substances, factors used in classes of exemptions, state implementation of the minimum risk program, and the need for any future exemptions or modifications to current exemptions; and
- Whether EPA should consider amending existing exemptions or adding any new classes of pesticidal substances for exemption.
One important difference is that the April 2021 ANPR now includes a discussion of environmental justice. EPA states that Executive Order 12989 directed agencies, “to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its actions on minority and low-income populations.” EPA states in the ANPR that it has not identified any such disproportionate effects, since this ANPR is soliciting comments and is not proposing any specific actions or regulatory changes.
Specific questions posed that relate to environmental justice include the following:
- Given the identified minimum risk characteristics of these products and anticipated low impacts on communities, are current approaches effective for seeking input from the public and stakeholders, including state, local, tribal, and territorial officials, scientists, labor unions, environmental advocates, and environmental justice organizations? Are there particular approaches that are more or less effective?
- Are there other policies that EPA should consider in determining whether a substance should be exempt from FIFRA regulation via the Minimum Risk Pesticide Listing Program? For example, should EPA consider additional environmental justice and pollution prevention policies?
- When considering products that are a “minimum risk” to public health and the environment, should the product also be considered to be of low impact to all communities, including low-income and minority populations? Please explain why or why not.
- When considering whether a category or class of products are a “minimum risk” to public health and the environment, should the category or class of products also be considered as being of low impact to all communities, including low-income and minority populations? Are there other factors that EPA should consider?
Other questions posed that have not changed substantively since the 2021 ANPR include the following:
- Do you have any suggestions for improving the processes for initiating a review of a substance or for implementing a decision that a substance may be used or may no longer be used in a minimum risk pesticide process? Please explain how changes could increase efficiencies.
- EPA broadly requests comment on the utility, clarity, functioning, and implementation of the provisions in 40 C.F.R. Section 152.25.
- Are there other pesticidal substances or systems (e.g., peat) that EPA should consider adding as new classes at 40 C.F.R. Section 152.25 for exemption from registration under FIFRA? How do these other pesticidal substances or systems meet the existing factors?
- What other factors should EPA consider in determining whether a category or class of products should be exempted from FIFRA regulation? Please explain how these factors should be weighed in a determination.
- Have the changes to the federal program in the 2015 rule, which provided specific chemical identifiers and labeling changes, made it easier for manufacturers, the public, and federal, state, and tribal inspectors to identify specific chemicals used in minimum risk pesticide products?
- Are there state challenges to implementing the minimum risk program? Can EPA address those challenges with changes to its program? Do states have suggestions for improvements to the program?
Given the change in Administrations and the “pause” that was imposed and further review that was required before this proposed rulemaking could be issued, it was unclear whether EPA would issue this proposal.
Now that EPA has issued the ANPR, it is important for stakeholders to review these issues carefully and consider submitting comments to identify challenges with the current regulatory criteria and procedures, as well as potential modifications that could improve the regulatory process.
EPA states: “Should EPA decide to move forward with changes to the program, the next step would be to identify, develop and evaluate specific options for amending the current regulations in 40 CFR 152.25, and issue a proposed rule for public review and comment.” EPA also notes that with regard to environmental justice, it is seeking public input on the consideration of environmental justice concerns in the context of the issues raised in the ANPR, and that “if and when the Agency proposes regulatory options regarding exemptions under FIFRA or the related procedures, EPA will seek additional input from the public, as appropriate.”
By Lisa M. Campbell and Lisa R. Burchi
On March 31, 2021, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a Stop Sale, Use or Removal Order (SSURO) to ViaClean Technologies (ViaClean), operating in Philadelphia, regarding the sales, distribution, and marketing of the pesticide BioProtect RTU with claims that it is effective against surfaces from public health-related pathogens such as SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.
Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), products that claim to kill or repel bacteria or germs, including disinfectants, are considered pesticides and must be registered with EPA. Public health claims can only be made regarding products that have been properly tested and are registered with EPA.
In this case, BioProtect RTU is a registered pesticide, with label claims approved by EPA, in part, to use the product to inhibit the growth of odor causing bacteria that cause staining and discoloration, and algae. According to EPA, ViaClean provided two BioProtect RTU fact sheets containing public health claims to at least one customer, including the statement that the pesticide can be used to kill “germs.” EPA also alleged that some online distributors, cleaning services, and end-recipients of BioProtect RTU were also making claims that this product is effective against pathogens, germs, disease-causing bacteria, viruses, and/or SARS-CoV-2 for up to 90 days.
EPA’s issuance of the SSURO is thus based on EPA’s belief that ViaClean was selling, distributing, and marketing BioProtect RTU with public health claims that have not been substantiated or approved through the pesticide registration process. EPA states that it is concerned that customers may have used this product as protection from viruses -- SARS-CoV-2 -- in lieu of other EPA-approved disinfection methods.
This case is another example of EPA’s enforcement priorities and vigilance over the past year to identify products making claims to act against the coronavirus and taking action to prevent further sales when such products are not approved by EPA to make such claims.
By Lara A. Hall, MS, RQAP-GLP and Heather F. Collins, M.S.
On March 17, 2021, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the issuance of the final guidance document entitled "Guidance for Waiving Acute Dermal Toxicity Tests for Pesticide Technical Chemicals & Supporting Retrospective Analysis" (EPA 705-G-2020-3722; Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0093) that expands the potential for data waivers for acute dermal studies to single technical active ingredients (AI) used to formulate end-use products. This new guidance builds upon the final guidance for waiving acute dermal toxicity tests for pesticide formulations published by EPA on November 9, 2016, and is an example of EPA’s continued efforts to reduce animal testing and achieve its goal of eliminating all EPA requests for studies and EPA funding of studies on mammals by 2035. EPA states that this guidance is expected to reduce the number of test animals used annually by approximately 750, as well as save EPA, industry, and laboratory resources.
The new final guidance document also allows EPA to harmonize with the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) of Canada, which published guidance on acute dermal toxicity waivers for both end-use product formulations and technical chemicals in 2017.
In developing the new guidance, EPA states that the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) and the National Toxicology Program (NTP) Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods (NICEATM) conducted a retrospective analysis of rat acute oral and acute dermal LD50 studies for 249 AIs across numerous chemical classes and toxicity categories in the EPA pesticide categorization scheme. The overall purpose of this analysis was to address the utility of the acute dermal toxicity study for single AIs in pesticide labeling, such as the signal word and precautionary statements. Fumigants and rodenticides were excluded from this retrospective analysis based on their physical state and/or anticipated exposures to them. EPA concluded that:
- For 67 percent of the 249 technical chemicals, the results of both oral and dermal acute toxicity studies fall within the same Toxicity Category;
- For 32 percent of the chemicals, the oral study falls within a lower (i.e., more protective) Toxicity Category;
- Thus, for 99 percent of the chemicals in the analysis, if the dermal study had not been available and labeling had been based only on the Toxicity Category for the oral acute toxicity study, the labeling requirements would have been equally or more protective;
- For the two remaining chemicals (less than 1 percent), factors other than the dermal acute toxicity may influence labeling requirements; and
- The acute dermal toxicity studies provide little to no added value in regulatory decision making.
EPA states that it believes the retrospective analysis fully supports the conclusion that waivers may be granted for acute dermal toxicity studies for pesticide technical chemicals, except for fumigants and rodenticides. Waivers may be accepted for fumigants and rodenticides on a case-by-case basis with appropriate scientific rationale. EPA maintains the ability to request acute dermal toxicity data on a case-by-case basis, but states that it anticipates granting the waiver in most cases.
Additional information on EPA’s efforts to reduce animal testing is available here.
By James V. Aidala and Carla N. Hutton
On March 3, 2021, the Farmworker Association of Florida, Environmental Working Group, and Center for Biological Diversity petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for review of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) order registering the use of the pesticide aldicarb on oranges and grapefruit in Florida as set forth in:
EPA published a Federal Register notice on December 7, 2020, announcing that it had received applications to register new uses for pesticide products containing aldicarb, a currently registered active ingredient. 85 Fed. Reg. 78851. The proposed use was on oranges and grapefruit in Florida and Texas. EPA’s January 12, 2021, Registration Decision states that during the application review, the registrant amended its request and the use was limited by amount of product that can be sold and distributed (i.e., 2,500,000 pounds product) for use during an application season (November 15 to April 30), limited to oranges and grapefruit in Florida, only, and will expire after the third application season (April 30, 2023). The Registration Decision states that EPA “is conditionally approving the uses on oranges and grapefruit to the products MEYMIK TECHNICAL (EPA Reg. No. 87895-2), AGLOGIC 15GG (EPA Reg. No. 87895-4) and AGLOGIC 15GG OG (EPA Reg. No. 87895-7).” According to the Registration Decision, “[t]hese conditional, time-limited registrations will allow for a narrow use of aldicarb on oranges and grapefruit in Florida to help in the control of certain insects, mites, and nematodes, including [Asian citrus psyllid (ACP)].” EPA notes that in conditionally approving these new uses for the existing products under Section 3(c)(7)(B) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), it determined that there are insufficient data to register these uses unconditionally.
EPA’s justification for allowing these uses centers on the need for products to control, or at least slow down the spread of, citrus-greening disease (spread by the ACP-vectored bacterial disease Huanglongbing (HLB)). The registration rationale notes that growers have seen up to an 80 percent reduction in production value due to the disease. This registration appears to be a time-limited registration in order to have another pest control tool while further research continues to attempt to find a more permanent solution to controlling the disease. EPA’s rationale describes past registrations of aldicarb that have provided extensive data and reviews of the required health and ecological assessments to meet the FIFRA standards. A time-limited registration also makes EPA’s assessment “easier” insofar as there is no presumption of long-term chronic exposure to the pesticide beyond the time-limited period. The tolerances for aldicarb had continued to remain in place to allow for use on imported food after earlier reviews determined the tolerance levels met the relevant standards (including risks to children). These additional uses on domestic crops was determined not to change the analytical basis of the tolerance assessment (example: the amount of orange juice consumed does not change if a domestic or foreign supplier is the source).
At the same time, aldicarb has been a controversial pesticide for much of its history. As a carbamate insecticide, its mode of action is cholinesterase inhibition, which has raised issues about possible long-term neurological or other developmental effects from carbamate or organophosphate pesticides. And, as a potent insecticide, some would say there will likely be impacts on pollinators even if label directions are followed. Lastly, arguments over possible risks to farmworkers, assessed to be acceptable in the registration decision, may prove to be an early test of the stated commitment to review more closely decisions with possible environmental justice implications under the new Biden Administration.